Sure enough, he ended up finding a dead rat. Unsurprising, considering he previously used a dead rat as an “alarm clock” because the sun would begin cooking the corpse, causing it to smell, and the stench would wake him up.
Damn i like that guy. Funny, at least.
“I change my pillowcases, I’ve done it before. It’s happened, I think twice,” he said. “One time I had a girlfriend move in and she said, ‘you need to change your pillowcases,’ and that was in 2019.”
As an european, i 100% support this. Send all the crazy right-wingers to america. we don't need them here. There's nothing for them to do here anyways.
utilitarian approaches has been around since the 1960s and 70s
utilitarian approaches have been around for much longer than that, at least since 1500 when machiavelli wrote the influential book "the prince" where he argued utilitarism.
Its actually amazing how the complete opposite of Christian he is
The thing that you're missing is that christianity is a pretty brutal, cold-hearted thing. It was never meant to be about compassion and love. That's just what they tell the children sothat they get onboard with it all.
It's like, when you're teaching maths to children and you present fractions using apples and pies, pretty harmless things. Years later, you can use more advanced maths (that are based on the basics of maths) to engineer weapons and heavy machinery, and it's all based on the same maths. It's not about being cute, it's about maths, it's more abstract than any of the applications.
Nah all myths are abstract descriptions of systems and processes. They were never meant to be detailed.
The real madness is not updating these myths to today's standards and taking everything that was written literally thousands of years ago as inarguably correct.
Any chance they reconsidered it at some point within the last 2000-ish years though?
You're right, these numbers should be updated.
Since the world population increased from roughly 200 million people on earth at the time these texts were written to closely 8 billion today, that's a roughly 40x increase in total population. So if we assume the same relative percentage, that's gonna be 6 million people to be saved in total. xD
I know this is a lot of math but this is my tax plan:
The government prints money and gives it out to the people, but has to tax it back at some point to create real demand for the currency, otherwise the currency devalues and becomes meaningless.
Since the government has to sooner or later tax back all money it hands out, the total government balance is always close to 0; i.e. there's no substantial government debt.
The government hands out the money directly to the people. It is really a hand-out and not a loan-out. Big banks can also take credits, but these are loans, not hand-outs.
The people continue to spend their money for products. A low sales tax would mean higher amount of sales and therefore higher revenue for companies.
The companies get money from sales, but the companies can't meaningfully profit. If they profit, where does the money go? The shareholders can't invest that money anywhere meaningfully, since the market is already fully grown and new investments simply aren't worth that much. So, since profits are less meaningful, the company lowers their sales price to reduce profit, which in turn increases sales amount. As the company profits converges to zero, all the company's income is spent on expenses - either labor expenses or expenses in materials.
The materials either come from agricultural farms, or from mining operations. Since these two can also be looked at as companies, the same applies and they will eventually lower their profit to the point where all their expenses go either towards wages or material expenses.
The lower that sales taxes are, the longer the journey of the dollar is before it finally gets taxed back by the government.
for reference: france has 70m inhabitants. if that money is distributed among the people, that's 300€/person per year.
that doesn't sound like a lot. that probably only covers something like 3% of people's cost of living. but it would be a valuable small experiment that can inform us about what works and what doesn't work, and then we can see how we go on.
edit: i did the calculation, and the same wealth tax implemented in the US would generate about $7k/person per year. Source: link and link and some spreadsheet maths.
that's a sizeable income, and if that was distributed among the people, it would really help them.
the thing is that it doesn't even inconvenience them. it's a net gain for them as well. (they just haven't understood that yet)
consumerism is in decline because people have less money. if people consume less, companies can't sell products, so they have less revenue, so the company's worth less.
rich people hold all their wealth as assets of some companies (or apartments that they rent out). if consumers have no money, these assets become less valuable as a result. the only way to keep these assets valuable is to stimulate consumerism, which can only happen if the people have money that they can spend.
taxing the rich might superficially appear as if it would annoy the rich, but actually the opposite will happen. if you tax the rich, the money goes to the people, who spend it by buying products, and so the companies (and therefore the rich) recover that money. as long as that cycle keeps spinning, there's revenue to be made, and companies and assets are worth something. the wealth of a country is measured in its productive force; if there's no consumption of products, companies and factories decline and crumble and the productive force diminishes. It is only as long as people continue to consume products that new products will continue to be produced, which means that the factories stay maintained and functional.
also they have to suffer a disadvantage if they do leave the country, for example they lose access to the french consumer market; if they shift their companies somewhere else, then they lose the ability to sell products in france and make money that way.
The idea of a 2% wealth tax on fortunes worth more than €100m has been proposed by Gabriel Zucman, an economics professor who has become a household name in France.
I fully 100% agree.
The reason why the tax exempt amount is $100m is sothat 99% of the population have less than that amount in total wealth, so they pay no taxes at all; that's why it should be widely popular. At least parties like the AfD can't argue that it "hurts the small man", because that's simply not true.
I think that a wealth tax can only work if it's combined with import taxes, because otherwise companies just leave the country and go somewhere else to produce their products. To prevent them from doing so, they have to suffer a disadvantage if they do that, so they have to lose access to the market, for example, by implementing import taxes.
this is just such a french headline it's incredible :D